Thompson and Reagan

As soon as former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson announced that he was mulling over a run for the presidency, pundits and voters alike began to announce comparisons between Thompson and Ronald Reagan. Now that Thompson is in the race with both feet, it is worthwhile to examine more carefully ways in which he is or is not somehow parallel to Reagan.

It is important to note at the outset that Republicans have to come to grips with the facts that there was only one Reagan and that he was not perfect (though he was very, very good). Constant seeking after the "next Reagan," followed by regular disappointment, is an indication that many Republicans and conservatives have simultaneously a) concluded that Reagan is easy to replicate and b) so idealized him that no candidate can actually meet the expectations that result. This makes them look silly.

Nevertheless, Reagan was the most successful Republican politician in the second half of the twentieth century. Just as great caution should greet any proclamations of the "next Reagan," it would be foolish for Republicans not to think about how his successes might be repeated, and whether particular candidates offer a reasonable prospect of contributing to that repetition.

There are some obvious ways in which Thompson does not parallel Reagan as a candidate. The first is that he does not have executive experience, unlike Reagan's two terms as governor of California. The Tennessean will have to overcome the nation's recent reluctance to turn to the Senate for presidents, and will have to convince Americans he can be an effective chief executive. Thompson has also not spent two decades or more advancing his political ideas as Reagan did in the years before 1980.

Critics of both men claim to find a parallel in their allegedly soft work habits. This claim should neither help nor harm Thompson among voters, who want an effective chief executive but who remember that Reagan's so-called "laziness" was neither well-proven nor, if it was true, a real handicap to presidential success.

Thompson, like Reagan, has been an actor. Some persist in believing that Reagan's success was due to his acting ability, but this by itself is a poor explanation. Thompson's acting ability—or more precisely his poise and stage presence—may help him at the margins, as it helped Reagan, but it will hardly be enough. As other commentators have noted, his authoritative roles may help him a bit more than did Reagan's less weighty roles. All in all, however, a focus on Reagan's and Thompson's acting does not illuminate Thompson's prospects or his desirability as a candidate.

Reagan's folksy charm has often been cited by pundits as a contributing factor to his success, and here too Thompson has been cited as Reaganesque. To the extent that Thompson presents the picture of a regular guy from a modest background displaying no outsized ambition, he can indeed tap into the same currents that fed popular admiration of Reagan. However, at the end of the George W. Bush era, the premium on folksiness may not be what it once was.

It is in two other areas, less noted by the media, that Thompson has a real opportunity to excite voters as Reagan did. First, a key to Reagan's success was that he was able to keep together—or perhaps it is more accurate to say put together—economic conservatives and social conservatives. It is unlikely that any Republican candidate can succeed without maintaining that alliance. A crucial reason that no other top-tier candidate has cemented a dominating position in the polls is that none have been able to make a compelling case for why they are capable of accomplishing that task. Thompson has the potential to be that candidate.

Second, it was not Reagan's acting career that made him a "Great Communicator," it was his willingness to communicate big ideas. He stood out among political figures for his capacity to discuss big principles and then connect them in a persuasive way to issues of the moment. George W. Bush has almost entirely eschewed such argumentation (except when discussing democratization in foreign policy), and so have the leaders in the Republican primary field. Thompson, on the other hand, regularly builds his argument around "first principles" of individual liberty, limited government, and federalism. This sort of discourse is arguably vital to rallying and unifying Republicans, reaching out to conservative independents, establishing distance from the Bush administration, and building an appealing contrast with a Democratic nominee who will undoubtedly focus on a bottomless promise of new and expanded programs. It is not self-evident that Thompson can pull it off, but he is the only candidate in the top tier of the Republican field who seems interested in trying. In the end, if Fred Thompson can successfully reintroduce a discourse of principles to the political arena, he will parallel Reagan in the one way that counts the most.

Andrew E. Busch is a Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and an Adjunct Fellow of the Ashbrook Center.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. Thompson is NOT a McCain clone. He’s his own man, as evidenced by his multiple holdout votes (99-1) in the senate on questions of states’ rights.

During the eight years that Thompson and McCain served together, they cast votes on 102 CQ-defined key votes and agreed on 83 of them - or 81.4 percent of the time. They disagreed 18.6% of the time, that’s pretty high considering that both are Republicans and both are considered relatively conservative. Just as an example from one year, among the instances in which Thompson and McCain differed were votes in 2002 to effectively extend a repeal of the estate tax beyond 2010, to authorize oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to postpone tougher automobile fuel efficiency standards. Thompson voted “aye” and McCain voted “no” in all three cases.

*****

Ed Morrissey, posting on Captain’s Quarters:

“Thompson also had some significant issues with McCain’s policies. He supported the BCRA, but now says that campaign finance reform has done nothing to solve the problems it intended to address, and that a new approach is needed. Thompson supported the Bush tax cuts from the beginning. He also pushed back against some of McCain’s bipartisan efforts, such as on the “patients bill of rights”, on federalist grounds.

In the end, though, the biggest difference is trust. The base simply does not trust John McCain, not after the BCRA, the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill, and especially not after the Gang of 14. No amount of banging on podiums about the war will repair that damage in the primaries. With Thompson, the base gets the best parts of the McCain platform, with a healthy dose of federalism and lower taxes, and some measure of reliability. As much as the [Washington] Post wants to tie them together, Fred and John are quite different — and the GOP base understands that.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009894.php

Thought Mesh blog puts it more succinctly:

“But even my passing glance is enough to see some very substantial differences [Thompson has] from McCain.”

http://blog.thought-mesh.net/archives/2007/05/its_always_the_beam_in_o.php

Fred Thomson, in a recent Orange County Register interview:

“A Republican, especially a conservative Republican - you’re going to have a large group of people you line up with on most votes. John and I certainly fit that category. But we have different views on some issues. We’ll have a good discussion about it. But John is my friend and will remain my friend, regardless of what we do.”

http://blogs.ocregister.com/buzz/2007/05/oneonone_with_fred_thomspon.html

Some key SenateMatch responses for Fred Thompson and John McCain:

“Abortion is a woman’s right”
Fred: Strongly Opposes (voted to ban partial-birth abortion)
McCain: Opposes (voted to allow partial-birth abortion)

“Sexual orientation protected by civil rights laws”
Fred: Strongly Opposes
McCain: Favors

“More federal funding for health coverage”
Fred: Opposes
McCain: Favors

“Replace coal & oil with alternatives”
Fred: Opposes (Voted to preserve budget for ANWR oil drilling)
McCain: Favors (Voted to kill budget for ANWR oil drilling

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.